Well, apart from the fact that unemployment is higher in states with so-called "Right to Work" and wages are lower, there are two fundamental problems.

The first is we already have a right to work, so it's clear the name is meant to disguise the true intent. The authors evidently prefer the contents be given no scrutiny, much the way snake oil salesmen used to work. "Trust me" is not the basis for exercising one's judgement. Nobody's forced to join a union, and no union members are forced to spend money on politics, both are entirely voluntary.

Second, one of the chief supporters is the Chamber of Commerce, but when asked if they'd provide their services to non-paying members the way so-called "Right-to-Work" laws force unions to do, they basically laughed and hung up the phone.

If you think a union adds no value, don't work a union job. But insisting unions provide their services free makes no sense whatsoever - what's next? A right to work out at health clubs that can't charge for membership? Get serious.